G.R. No.

161151, March 24, 2014

BJDC CONSTRUCTION, REPRESENTED BY ITS

MANAGER/PROPRIETOR JANET S. DELA
CRUZ, Petitioner, v. NENA E. LANUZO, CLAUDETTE E.
LANUZO, JANET E. LANUZO, JOAN BERNABE E. LANUZO, AND
RYAN JOSE E. LANUZO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N
The party alleging the negligence of the other as the
cause of injury has the burden to establish the
allegation with competent evidence. If the action based
on negligence is civil in nature, the proof required is
preponderance of evidence.

This case involves a claim for damages arising from the

death of a motorcycle rider in a nighttime accident due
to the supposed negligence of a construction company
then undertaking reblocking work on a national
highway. The plaintiffs insisted that the accident
happened because the construction company did not
provide adequate lighting on the site, but the latter
countered that the fatal accident was caused by the
negligence of the motorcycle rider himself. The trial
court decided in favor of the construction company, but
the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision and
ruled for the plaintiffs.

Hence, this appeal.

Antecedents

On January 5, 1998, Nena E. Lanuzo (Nena) filed a

complaint for damages1 against BJDC Construction
(company), a single proprietorship engaged in the
construction business under its Manager/Proprietor
Janet S. de la Cruz. The company was the contractor of
the reblocking project to repair the damaged portion
of one lane of the national highway at San Agustin,
Pili, Camarines Sur from September 1997to November
1997.

Nena alleged that she was the surviving spouse of the

late Balbino Los Baos Lanuzo (Balbino) who figured in
the accident that transpired at the site of the re
blocking work at about 6:30 p.m. on October 30, 1997;
that Balbinos Honda motorcycle sideswiped the road
barricade placed by the company in the right lane
portion of the road, causing him to lose control of his
motorcycle and to crash on the newly cemented road,
resulting in his instant death; and that the companys
failure to place illuminated warning signs on the site
of the project, especially during night time, was the
proximate cause of the death of Balbino. She prayed
that the company be held liable for damages, to wit:
(a) P5,000.00 as the actual damage to Balbinos
motorcycle; (b) P100,000.00 as funeral and burial
expenses; (c) P559,786.00 representing the unearned
income in expectancy of Balbino; (d) P100,000.00 as
moral damages; (e) P75,000.00 as attorneys fees, plus
P1,500.00 per court appearance; and (f) P20,000.00 as
litigation costs and other incidental expenses.

In its answer,2 the company denied Nenas allegations of

negligence, insisting that it had installed warning
signs and lights along the highway and on the
barricades of the project; that at the time of the
incident, the lights were working and switched on; that
its project was duly inspected by the Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the Office of the
Mayor of Pili, and the Pili Municipal Police Station;
and that it was found to have satisfactorily taken
measures to ensure the safety of motorists.

The company further alleged that since the start of the

project in September 1997, it installed several warning
signs, namely: (a) big overhead streamers containing
the words SLOW DOWN ROAD UNDER REPAIR AHEAD hung
approximately 100 meters before the reblocking site,
one facing the Pilibound motorists and another facing
the Nagabound motorists; (b) road signs containing the
words SLOW DOWN ROAD UNDER REPAIR 100 METERS AHEAD
placed on the road shoulders below the streamers; (c)
road signs with the words SLOW DOWN ROAD UNDER REPAIR
50 METERS AHEAD placed 50 meters before the project
site; (d) barricades surrounded the affected portion of
the highway, and a series of 50watt light bulbs were
installed and switched on daily from 6:00 p.m. until
the following morning; (e) big warning signs containing
the words SLOW DOWN ROAD UNDER REPAIR and SLOW DOWN MEN
WORKING were displayed at both ends of the affected
portion of the highway with illumination from two 50
watt bulbs from 6:00 p.m. until the following morning;
and (f) the unaffected portion of the highway was
temporarily widened in the adjacent road shoulder to
allow twoway vehicular traffic.

The company insisted that the death of Balbino was an

accident brought about by his own negligence, as
confirmed by the police investigation report that
stated, among others, that Balbino was not wearing any
helmet at that time, and the accident occurred while
Balbino was overtaking another motorcycle; and that the
police report also stated that the road sign/barricade
installed on the road had a light. Thus, it sought the
dismissal of the complaint and prayed, by way of
counterclaim, that the Nena be ordered to pay
P100,000.00 as attorneys fees, as well as moral
damages to be proven in the course of trial.

The RTC subsequently directed the amendment of the

complaint to include the children of Nena and Balbino
as coplaintiffs, namely: Janet, Claudette, Joan
Bernabe and Ryan Jose, all surnamed Lanuzo. Hence, the
plaintiffs are hereinafter be referred to as the Lanuzo
heirs.
Decision of the RTC

On October 8, 2001, the RTC rendered judgment in favor

of the company, as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Plaintiffs are the survivors of Balbino Los Baos
Lanuzo who met a traumatic death on 30 October, 1997 at
about 6:30 p.m., when he bumped his motorcycle on a
barricade that was lighted with an electric bulb,
protecting from traffic the newlyreblocked cement road
between San Agustin and San Jose, Pili, Camarines Sur;
they claim defendants OMISSION in lighting up the
barricaded portion of the reblocking project being
undertaken by defendant was the proximate cause of the
accident, leaving them bereaved and causing them actual
and moral damages.

Defendant DENIED the claim of plaintiffs; both parties

offered testimonial and documentary evidence, from
which this Court,
FINDS

that: plaintiff DID NOT present an eyewitness account

of the death of their decedent; on the contrary, the
flagman of defendant was present when the accident
occurred, which was caused by the decedent having
overtaken a motorcycle ahead of [him] and on swerving,
to avoid the barricade, hit it, instead, breaking the
lighted electric bulb on top of the barricade,
resulting in the fall of the decedent about 18 paces
from where his motorcycle fell on the reblocked
pavement; the police investigator, policeman Corporal,
by Exh. 1, confirmed the tale of the flagman, aside
from confirming the presence of the warning devices
placed not only on the premises but at places
calculated to warn motorists of the ongoing reblocking
project.
OPINION

From the foregoing findings, it is the opinion of this

Court that the plaintiffs were unable to make out a
case for damages, with a preponderance of evidence.

WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered, DISMISSING the

complaint. 3

Decision of the CA

The Lanuzo heirs appealed to the CA.

On August 11, 2003, the CA promulgated its decision

declaring that the issue was whether the company had
installed adequate lighting in the project so that
motorists could clearly see the barricade placed on the
newly cemented lane that was then still closed to
vehicular traffic,4 thereby reversing the judgment of
the RTC, and holding thusly:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is
hereby GRANTED and the decision appealed from in Civil
Case No. P2117 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new
judgment is hereby entered ordering the defendant
appellee to pay the plaintiffappellants, heirs of the
victim Balbino L. B. Lanuzo, the sums of P50,000.00 as
death indemnity, P20,000.00 by way of temperate damages
and P939,736.50 as loss of earning capacity of the
deceased Balbino L. B. Lanuzo.

SO ORDERED.5

The CA ruled that the following elements for the

application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur were
present, namely: (1) the accident was of such character
as to warrant an inference that it would not have
happened except for the defendants negligence; (2) the
accident must have been caused by an agency or
instrumentality within the exclusive management or
control of the person charged with the negligence
complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been
due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part
of the person injured.

The CA regarded as selfserving the testimony of

Eduardo Zamora, an employee of the company who
testified that there was an electric bulb placed on top
of the barricade on the area of the accident. It held
that Zamoras statement was negated by the statements
of Ernesto Alto and Asuncion Sandia to the effect that
they had passed by the area immediately before the
accident and had seen the road to be dark and lit only
by a gas lamp. It noted that SPO1 Corporal, the police
investigator, had noticed the presence of lighted
electric bulbs in the area, but the same had been
installed on the other side of the street opposite the
barricade.

The CA ruled that the placing of road signs and

streamers alone did not prove that the electric bulbs
were in fact switched on at the time of the accident as
to sufficiently light up the newly reblocked portion
of the highway. It opined that [t]he trial court gave
undue weight to the selfserving statement of
appellees employee, Eduardo Zamora, which was
supposedly corroborated by SPO1 Pedro Corporal. SPO1
Corporal arrived at the scene only after the accident
occurred, and thus the electric bulbs could have
already been switched on by Zamora who was at the area
of the project. It concluded that the negligence of
the company was the proximate cause of Balbinos death;
hence, the company was liable for damages.

The company filed a motion for reconsideration,6 but the

CA denied the motion in the resolution promulgated on
November 13, 2003.
Issues

In this appeal, the company submits the following

issues, namely:
I. The application by the Honorable Court of Appeals of
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to the case at bar,
despite and contrary to the finding, among others, by
the trial court that the proximate cause of the
accident is the victims own negligence, is not in
accord with the law or with the applicable decisions of
the Supreme Court [Sec. 6 (a), Rule 45, Rules of
Court].

II. The Honorable Court of Appeals, by substituting its

own findings of fact and conclusion with those of the
trial court despite the lack of strong or cogent
reasons therefor, has so far departed from the
accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings ...
as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision
by this Honorable Supreme Court [Sec. 6 (b), Ibid.].

III. The findings by the Honorable Court of Appeals

that respondents (appellants therein) had
satisfactorily presented a prima facie case of
negligence which the appellee (petitioner herein) had
not overcome with an adequate explanation and which
alleged negligence is the proximate cause of death of
Lanuzo are manifestations of grave abuse of discretion
in the appreciation of facts, and constitute a judgment
based on a misinterpretation of facts, which justify a
review by this Honorable Supreme Court.7

The company reiterates the categorical finding of the

RTC that the proximate cause of the accident was
Balbinos own negligence, and that such finding was
based on the conclusion stated by SPO1 Corporal in his
investigation report to the effect that the incident
was purely self accident, and on the unrebutted
testimony of Zamora to the effect that Balbino was
driving his motorcycle at a fast speed trying to
overtake another motorcycle rider before hitting the
barricade. On the other hand, it insists that its
documentary and testimonial evidence proved its
exercise of due care and observance of the legally
prescribed safety requirements for contractors.

The company maintains that Balbino was familiar with

the reblocking project that had been going on for
months because he had been passing the area at least
four times a day during weekdays in going to and from
his place of work in the morning and in the afternoon;
and that he could have avoided the accident had he
exercised reasonable care and prudence.

The company assails the application of the doctrine

of res ipsa loquitur, positing that the Lanuzo heirs
did not establish all the requisites for the doctrine
to apply.

Anent the first requisite, the company states that the

Lanuzo heirs did not successfully counter its
documentary and testimonial evidence showing that
Balbinos own negligence had caused the accident. It
cites the fact that Balbino was familiar with the road
conditions and the reblocking project because he had
been passing there daily; and that Balbino had been
driving too fast and not wearing the required helmet
for motorcycle drivers, which were immediately evident
because he had been thrown from his motorcycle and had
landed 18 paces away from the barricade that he had
hit.

On the second requisite, the company argues that

Balbinos driving and operation of his motorcycle on
the day of the accident indicated that the accident was
not within its exclusive management and control; and
that as to the matters that were within its control, it
sufficiently showed its observance of due and
reasonable care and its compliance with the legally
prescribed safety requirements.

Regarding the third requisite, the company reminds that

Zamora and SPO1 Corporal revealed that Balbino was
overtaking another motorcycle rider before hitting the
barricade. The credibility of said witnesses was not
challenged, and their testimonies not rebutted; hence,
the CA erred in relying on the recollections of
Asuncion Sandia and Ernesto Alto who were not present
when the incident took place. Sandia and Altos
testimonies could not be accorded more weight than
Zamoras eyewitness account, considering that the
latter was believed by the trial judge who had the
firsthand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses.

Whose negligence was the proximate cause of the death

of Balbino?
Ruling of the Court

Inasmuch as the RTC and the CA arrived at conflicting

findings of fact on who was the negligent party, the
Court holds that an examination of the evidence of the
parties needs to be undertaken to properly determine
the issue.8 The Court must ascertain whose evidence was
preponderant, for Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of
Court mandates that in civil cases, like this one, the
party having the burden of proof must establish his
case by a preponderance of evidence.9

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present

evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish
his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required
by law.10 It is basic that whoever alleges a fact has
the burden of proving it because a mere allegation is
not evidence.11 Generally, the party who denies has no
burden to prove.12 In civil cases, the burden of proof
is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is
given on either side.13 The burden of proof is on the
plaintiff if the defendant denies the factual
allegations of the complaint in the manner required by
the Rules of Court, but it may rest on the defendant if
he admits expressly or impliedly the essential
allegations but raises affirmative defense or defenses,
which if proved, will exculpate him from liability.14

By preponderance of evidence, according to Raymundo v.

Lunaria:15
x x x is meant that the evidence as a whole adduced by
one side is superior to that of the other. It refers to
the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence
on either side and is usually considered to be
synonymous with the term greater weight of evidence
or greater weight of the credible evidence. It is
evidence which is more convincing to the court as
worthy of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto.

In addition, according to United Airlines, Inc. v.

Court of Appeals,16 the plaintiff must rely on the
strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness
of the defendants.

Upon a review of the records, the Court affirms the

findings of the RTC, and rules that the Lanuzo heirs,
the parties carrying the burden of proof, did not
establish by preponderance of evidence that the
negligence on the part of the company was the proximate
cause of the fatal accident of Balbino.

Negligence, the Court said in Layugan v. Intermediate

Appellate Court,17 is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs,
would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do,18 or as Judge Cooley
defines it, (t)he failure to observe for the
protection of the interests of another person, that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person
suffers injury.19 In order that a party may be held
liable for damages for any injury brought about by the
negligence of another, the claimant must prove that the
negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of the
injury. Proximate cause is defined as that cause,
which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury
and without which the result would not have occurred.20

The test by which the existence of negligence in a

particular case is determined is aptly stated in the
leading case of Picart v. Smith,21 as follows:
The test by which to determine the existence of
negligence in a particular case may be stated as
follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use that reasonable care and caution
which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in
the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard
supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the
discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence
of negligence in a given case is not determined by
reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the
situation before him. The law considers what would be
reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of
ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines
liability by that.

The question as to what would constitute the conduct of

a prudent man in a given situation must of course be
always determined in the light of human experience and
in view of the facts involved in the particular case.
Abstract speculation cannot here be of much value but
this much can be profitably said: Reasonable men govern
their conduct by the circumstances which are before
them or known to them. They are not, and are not
supposed to be, omniscient of the future. Hence they
can be expected to take care only when there is
something before them to suggest or warn of danger.
Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration,
foresee harm as a result of the course actually
pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actor to take
precautions to guard against that harm. Reasonable
foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the
suggestion born of this prevision, is always necessary
before negligence can be held to exist. Stated in these
terms, the proper criterion for determining the
existence of negligence in a given case is this:
Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in
the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that
an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable
to warrant his foregoing the conduct or guarding
against its consequences.

First of all, we note that the Lanuzo heirs argued in

the trial and appellate courts that there was a total
omission on the part of the company to place
illuminated warning signs on the site of the project,
especially during night time, in order to warn
motorists of the project. They claim that the omission
was the proximate cause of the death of Balbino. 22 In
this appeal, however, they contend that the negligence
of the company consisted in its omission to put
up adequate lighting and the required signs to warn
motorists of the project, abandoning their previous
argument of a total omission to illuminate the project
site.

During the trial, the Lanuzo heirs attempted to prove

inadequacy of illumination instead of the total
omission of illumination. Their first witness was Cesar
Palmero, who recalled that lights had been actually
installed in the site of the project. The next witness
was Ernesto Alto, who stated that he had seen three
light bulbs installed in the site, placed at intervals
along the stretch of the road covered by the project.
Alto further stated that he had passed the site on
board his tricycle on October 30, 1997 prior to the
accident, and had seen only a gas lamp, not light
bulbs, on his approach. Another witness of the
plaintiffs, Asuncion Sandia, claimed that she had also
passed the site on board a bus on the night just prior
to the accident, and had seen the site to be dark, with
only one lane open to traffic, with no light at all.
Obviously, the witnesses of the plaintiffs were not
consistent on their recollections of the significant
detail of the illumination of the site.

In contrast, the company credibly refuted the

allegation of inadequate illumination. Zamora, its
flagman in the project, rendered an eyewitness account
of the accident by stating that the site had been
illuminated by light bulbs and gas lamps, and that
Balbino had been in the process of overtaking another
motorcycle rider at a fast speed when he hit the
barricade placed on the newly cemented road. On his
part, SPO1 Corporal, the police investigator who
arrived at the scene of the accident on October 30,
1997, recalled that there were light bulbs on the other
side of the barricade on the lane coming from Naga
City; and that the light bulb on the lane where the
accident had occurred was broken because it had been
hit by the victims motorcycle. Witnesses Gerry Alejo
and Engr. Victorino del Socorro remembered that light
bulbs and gas lamps had been installed in the area of
the project.

Secondly, the company presented as its documentary

evidence the investigation report dated December 3,
1997 of SPO1 Corporal (Annex 1), the relevant portions
of which indicated the finding of the police
investigator on the presence of illumination at the
project site, viz:
SUBJECT: Investigation Report Re: Homicide Thru
Reckless Imprudence (Self Accident)

x x x x

II. MATTERS INVESTIGATED:

1. To determine how the incident happened.

2. To determine the vehicle involved.

III. FACTS OF THE CASE:

3.At 6:45 P.M. October 30, 1997, Elements of Pili

Municipal Police Station led by SPO2 Melchor
Estallo, SPO2 Cesar Pillarda, both members of the
patrol section and SPO1 Pedro D. Corporal,
investigator reported having conducted an on the
spot investigation re: vehicular incident (Self
Accident) that happened on or about 6:30 oclock in
the evening of October 30, 1997 along national
highway, San Agustin, Pili, Camarines Sur, wherein
one Balbino Lanuzo y Doe, of legal age, married, a
public school teacher, a resident of San Jose,
Pili, Camarines Sur while driving his Honda
motorcycle 110 CC enroute to San Jose, Pili,
Camarines Sur from Poblacion, this municipality and
upon reaching at road re: blocking portion of the
national highway at barangay San Agustin, Pili,
Camarines Sur and while overtaking another
motorcycle ahead incidentally sideswiped a road
sign/barricade installed at the lane road re:
blocking of the national highway, causing said
motorcycle rider to swerved his ridden motorcycle
to the right and stumble down and fell to the
concrete cemented road. Victim was rushed to Bicol
Medical Center, Naga City for treatment but was
pronounced dead on arrival.

4.That upon arrival at the scene of the incident it

was noted that road sign/barricade installed on the
road has a light.
 5.That said road was under repair for almost a month
which one lane portion of the national highway is
possible of all passing vehicles from south and
north bound.

6.That said motorcycle stumble down on the newly

repair portion of the national highway and the
driver lying down beside the motorcycle.

x x x x

7.That one of the passerby revealed that the victim

possibly be miscalculated the road block that made
him to tumble down when he applied sudden brake.

IV. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:

8.The time of the incident was at about 6:30 oclock

in the evening a time wherein dark of the night is
approaching the vision of the driver is affected
with the changing condition and it is all the time
when driver should lights his driven vehicle, as to
this case, the driver Balbino Lanuzo y Doe (victim
has exercise all precautionary measures to avoid
accident but due to self accident he incidentally
sideswiped the road sign/barricade of the re:
Blocking portion of the national highway resulting
him to stumble down his motorcycle and fell down to
the concrete cement road.

9.The driver/victim met unexpectedly (sic) along that

one lane potion of the re: blocking and considering
it was night time, confusion overthrew him and
because of sudden impulse, he lost control on the
motorcycle he was driving.

10. That the driver/victim has no crush (sic)

helmet at the time of the incident considering that
it should be a basic requirement as to prevent from
any accident.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

11. Basing on the above discussion and facts

surroundings the case was purely self accident
resulting to Homicide Thru Reckless Imprudence and
the case must be closed. (Emphasis ours.) 23

Additionally, the company submitted the application for

lighting permit covering the project site (Annex 7) to
prove the fact of installation of the electric light
bulbs in the project site.

In our view, the RTC properly gave more weight to the

testimonies of Zamora and SPO1 Corporal than to those
of the witnesses for the Lanuzo heirs. There was
justification for doing so, because the greater
probability pertained to the former. Moreover, the
trial courts assessment of the credibility of the
witnesses and of their testimonies is preferred to that
of the appellate courts because of the trial courts
unique firsthand opportunity to observe the witnesses
and their demeanor as such. The Court said in Cang v.
Cullen:24

The findings of the trial court on the credibility of

witnesses are accorded great weight and respect even
considered as conclusive and binding on this Court
since the trial judge had the unique opportunity to
observe the witness firsthand and note his demeanor,
conduct and attitude under grueling examination. Only
the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush
of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering
tone, calmness, sigh of a witness, or his scant or full
realization of an oath all of which are useful aids
for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and
sincerity. He can thus be expected to determine with
reasonable discretion which testimony is acceptable and
which witness is worthy of belief.

Absent any showing that the trial courts calibration

of the credibility of the witnesses was flawed, we are
bound by its assessment. This Court will sustain such
findings unless it can be shown that the trial court
ignored, overlooked, misunderstood, misappreciated, or
misapplied substantial facts and circumstances, which,
if considered, would materially affect the result of
the case.25

The Court observes, too, that SPO1 Corporal, a veteran

police officer detailed for more than 17 years at the
Pili Police Station, enjoyed the presumption of
regularity in the performance of his official
duties. The presumption, although rebuttable, stands
26

because the Lanuzo heirs did not adduce evidence to

show any deficiency or irregularity in the performance
of his official duty as the police investigator of the
accident. They also did not show that he was impelled
by any ill motive or bias to testify falsely.
Thirdly, the CA unreasonably branded the testimonies of
Zamora and SPO1 Corporal as selfserving. They were
not. Selfserving evidence refers to outofcourt
statements that favor the declarants interest;27 it is
disfavored mainly because the adverse party is given no
opportunity to dispute the statement and their
admission would encourage fabrication of
testimony. But court declarations are not selfserving
28

considering that the adverse party is accorded the

opportunity to test the veracity of the declarations by
crossexamination and other methods.

There is no question that Zamora and SPO1 Corporal were

thoroughly crossexamined by the counsel for the Lanuzo
heirs. Their recollections remained unchallenged by
superior contrary evidence from the Lanuzo heirs.

Fourthly, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur had no

application here. In Tan v. JAM Transit, Inc.,29 the
Court has discussed the doctrine thusly:
Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase that literally
means the thing or the transaction speaks for itself.
It is a maxim for the rule that the fact of the
occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding
circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a
presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiffs
prima facie case, and present a question of fact for
defendant to meet with an explanation. Where the thing
that caused the injury complained of is shown to be
under the management of the defendant or his servants;
and the accident, in the ordinary course of things,
would not happen if those who had management or control
used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in
the absence of a sufficient, reasonable and logical
explanation by defendant that the accident arose from
or was caused by the defendants want of care. This
rule is grounded on the superior logic of ordinary
human experience, and it is on the basis of such
experience or common knowledge that negligence may be
deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident
itself. Hence, the rule is applied in conjunction with
the doctrine of common knowledge.

For the doctrine to apply, the following requirements

must be shown to exist, namely:
(a) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does
not occur in the absence of someones negligence;
(b) it is caused by an instrumentality within the
exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and
(c) the possibility of contributing conduct that
would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated. 30

The Court has warned in Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy

Hospital,31 however, that res ipsa loquitur is not a
rigid or ordinary doctrine to be perfunctorily used
but a rule to be cautiously applied, depending upon
the circumstances of each case.

Based on the evidence adduced by the Lanuzo heirs,

negligence cannot be fairly ascribed to the company
considering that it has shown its installation of the
necessary warning signs and lights in the project
site. In that context, the fatal accident was not
caused by any instrumentality within the exclusive
control of the company. In contrast, Balbino had the
exclusive control of how he operated and managed his
motorcycle. The records disclose that he himself did
not take the necessary precautions. As Zamora
declared, Balbino overtook another motorcycle rider
at a fast speed, and in the process could not avoid
hitting a barricade at the site, causing him to be
thrown off his motorcycle onto the newly cemented
road. SPO1 Corporals investigation report
corroborated Zamoras declaration. This causation of
the fatal injury went uncontroverted by the Lanuzo
heirs.

Moreover, by the time of the accident, the project,

which had commenced in September 1997, had been going
on for more than a month and was already in the
completion stage. Balbino, who had passed there on a
daily basis in going to and from his residence and
the school where he then worked as the principal, was
thus very familiar with the risks at the project
site. Nor could the Lanuzo heirs justly posit that
the illumination was not adequate, for it cannot be
denied that Balbinos motorcycle was equipped with
headlights that would have enabled him at dusk or
night time to see the condition of the road ahead.
That the accident still occurred surely indicated
that he himself did not exercise the degree of care
expected of him as a prudent motorist.

According to Dr. Abilay, the cause of death of

Balbino was the fatal depressed fracture at the back
of his head, an injury that Dr. Abilay opined to be
attributable to his head landing on the cemented road
after being thrown off his motorcycle. Considering
that it was shown that Balbino was not wearing any
protective head gear or helmet at the time of the
accident, he was guilty of negligence in that
respect. Had he worn the protective head gear or
helmet, his untimely death would not have occurred.

The RTC was correct on its conclusions and findings

that the company was not negligent in ensuring safety
at the project site. All the established
circumstances showed that the proximate and immediate
cause of the death of Balbino was his own negligence.
Hence, the Lanuzo heirs could not recover damages.32

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review

on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision
promulgated on August 11, 2003 by the Court of
Appeals; REINSTATES the decision rendered on October
8, 2001 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, in
Pili, Camarines Sur dismissing the complaint;
and MAKES no pronouncements on costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.